February 27
...serving up your daily dish.
What's worse? Having a big boarding house down the street full of "recovering addicts, veterans and indigents" or 11 brand new three-bedroom townhouses? Residents of the Colonial Village neighborhood in Bloomfield, who've hated the boarding house for years, are now faced with a prospect that seems even more unpalatable. A Montclair-style townhouse invasion.
Residents gearing up for a development battle managed to get Jonathan Miller out to cover their meeting last week for the Jersey Section of the New York Times. The story's not online, but if you dig yesterday's Times out of your recycling (or go to the library) you'll find this little chestnut near the end of Miller's story.
On a visit last Sunday to the home, which houses 34 residents, a photographer was greeted by a belligerent, expletive-spewing woman who stood on the front porch, pulled her pants down in the 20-degree weather and presented her naked rear end. "You want a photoraph?" she said. "Then photograph this."
In a paragraph about the supposed renaissance of Bloomfield, Miller jumps the gun a little on some of his facts.
An amibtious redevelopment project is going forward in the heart of town. [Oh yeah?] The old junior high school has been transformed into condominiums. [Already?] The high school is expanding. [A very popular project.]
February 27, 2006 in Controversy | Permalink
Perhaps the "recovering addicts, veterans and indigents" (sorry, but I hear the word "veterans" and I still get a bit teary-eyed) might be housed in one of those 10 nice new homes at "Hempstead" that are going up. Just the possibility of Builder Plofker getting mooned (is the mooner a "veteran" of some "street wars?") as he inspects his domain, yes, that does it for me. And 34 of them? That's probably more overnight guests than the old Marlboro ever welcomed at any one time. Would certainly make this new, pre-fab sort of neighborhood immediately more diverse.
Posted by: cathar (8T) | Feb 27, 2006 1:40:19 PM
The way this is portrayed is unfair to the residents. They have mental problems and it is not their fault that they live at this location under the very poor supervision of the building's owners. It is the owners that are at fault here for not providing proper care and supervision.
As for the development plan, this is in the heart of the Historic District of Bloomfield, right off the Green next to the circa 1796 church. The neighborhood is zoned for single family homes and is a quiet cul de sac. The house could easily be converted into a number of different uses and maintain its outward appearance and context in the neighborhood. (e.g., local museum, bed & breakfast, condos within the house itself, and probably more). These people are just greedy to try to put something like this here and it is totally inappropriate.
Posted by: mauigirl52 | Feb 27, 2006 4:36:45 PM
LOL, Deb. Comments like that ("a VERY popular project") are what keep me coming back to Baristanet.
Can't wait to hear the spring construction schedule at ye olde high school!
Posted by: g | Feb 27, 2006 7:54:38 PM
I recall Baristanet having written about this, but, for all those who keep bashing Steve Plofker for those giant boxes: He is NO LONGER the builder of the Hempstead at Montclair homes on the site of the old Marlboro Inn.
Posted by: Real Estate Freak | Feb 27, 2006 10:16:26 PM
Either one is or is not the builder of homes, real estate freak. But you can't exactly be "no longer" the builder if building is still going on, now can you?
No matter, Plofker, along with his role as the original developer of the property, has come (along with Grabowsky) to symbolize development in Montclair. So it's Jay Gould and "Uncle" Dan Drew for the plundering of railroads, Neighbor Plofkie for the building of houses. For many of his critics, such will suffice.
Posted by: cathar (8T) | Feb 27, 2006 10:22:10 PM
Interesting to me that no matter what the original subject of the thread is (this being a proposed development project in Bloomfield) they always end up as Montclair-centered discussions monopolized by the Montclair(ir)Regulars.
Deb, if this site is soley concerned with the happenings in Montclair perhaps it should be presented as such. The doings in Glen Ridge and, God knows, Bloomfield, are of absolutely no concern to those who regularly visit the site.
Posted by: Karen | Feb 28, 2006 12:17:41 AM
